The creation was paradisiacal. There was no mortality.
Death for all forms of life began when Adam fell.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Encyclopedia of Mormonism "Evolution" article flawed

The Encyclopedia of Mormonismarticle about Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992, vol. 2, p. 478) written by William E. Evenson is often cited as evidence that the Church takes no official position on evolution. It is a short article, addressing two subjects with only 258 words. "The origin of man" is covered in 109 words, 44 of them quoted from two earlier First Presidencies. The subject of "organic evolution" is covered in 149 words, 96 of them quoted from an internal, unpublished 1931 First Presidency memo.

Two of the Church's First Presidencies are misquoted and the third is quoted out of context.

Much of what follows is taken from the book The Truth, The Way, The Life (second edition, Provo: BYU Studies, 1996). Written by Elder B. H. Roberts of the Seventy in 1927-28, it remained in manuscript form for more than 65 years. The book now includes an informative introduction and twelve analytical essays, one of which was written by William E. Evenson, who also wrote the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article about Evolution. The Truth, The Way, The Life will be referred to in the remainder of this article simply as TWL.

The Encyclopedia article about Evolution

Regarding the origin of man, Evenson quotes identical wording from two First Presidencies. However, the phrase "proclaims man to be" was changed to read "declares man to be" and it continues to be quoted thus incorrectly in publications that cite Evenson's article. Whether the word change would have been considered a meaning change by the 1909 or 1925 First Presidency is probably not important.

The sentence is actually quoted three times in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the other two being reprints of the original two First Presidency statements cited by Evenson and in both of these cases the phrase is quoted correctly (see vol. 4, pp. 1669 and 1670). On the surface, the word change appears to be an unintentional error, but there is another possibility.

John Gee in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1993, 5:174) reports that the influence of the editors at Macmillan was heavy at times. Even so, an intentionally substituted word should be inside square brackets. The original reads as follows:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity...."

Much more significant is the assertion that in 1931 there was "intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution." This claim is false, which means the 1931 First Presidency is quoted completely out of context. This is the article's major defect.

The Focus of the 1931 Discussion

The focus of the discussion in 1931 was the manuscript for TWL, which had been submitted for use as a Melchizedek Priesthood course of study (TWL, pp. xi-xvi, 680-720).

The story begins in 1927, when Elder Roberts asked for permission to take some time off from his duties as a General Authority to write a book. The First Presidency not only approved his request, they authorized him to hire a stenographer (TWL, 691). In October 1928, at the suggestion of the First Presidency, a committee of five members of the Quorum of the Twelve was formed to review the Roberts manuscript (TWL, 694).

The committee's initial evaluation was completed a few months later (TWL, 698). Then, throughout 1929 and 1930, discussion of TWL continued in meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve while members of the review committee tried to persuade Roberts to eliminate certain "objectionable features" (TWL, 698-707). Rather than cooperate with the committee, Roberts began defending his point of view in Church talks and "on the air." (TWL, 700)

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, a member of the review committee, felt Roberts was "causing a great deal of commotion" among Church members (Ibid.) so he attempted to clarify some things in a talk given in April 1930 to the Genealogical Society of Utah (TWL, 701). Publication of Elder Smith's talk in October 1930 was disquieting for Roberts and eventually led to some lengthy discussions in meetings of the entire Quorum of the Twelve (TWL, 702), meetings that included Elder Roberts because it was his book they were discussing (TWL, 703-707).

In January 1931, the discussions came to a high point and the matter was referred to the First Presidency (TWL, 706-707). Three months later, the First Presidency convened a special meeting of all the General Authorities where they said, among other things, what is quoted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article.

The Objectionable Features of the Manuscript

Although TWL was considered an excellent work in many respects, Roberts insisted on including in it some things that his Brethren could not approve (TWL, xiii; 692-702). Most of the problems were related to an attempt to reconcile the scriptures with the "rock record," or fossils. (TWL, 302, 297). Rejecting all other explanations for fossil origins (including organic evolution), Roberts set forth his own theory of an earlier, pre-Adamic creation (TWL, 238-240; 289-296). In this creation, God brought plants, animals, and pre-Adamic human-like beings to the earth, all of which lived and died for millions of years before the time of Adam. This, according to Roberts, would explain fossils found in the earth today. And because science studies these prehistoric creatures using geology, biology, anthropology and archaeology, Roberts used sources from these disciplines in his book (TWL, 232-240, 297-322).

Thus it was that pre-Adamites became a major part of the discussion. But, it is important to note that Elder Roberts had used that term in a way that did not support organic evolution because according to his theory these beings did not evolve. They were created and placed on earth last, after all other forms of life, millions of years ago (TWL, 238-240).

Roberts then speculates that "previous to the advent of Adam upon the earth, some destructive cataclysm,... left the earth empty and desolate" (TWL, p. 294). A new creation followed with Adam, the human creation, being this time "the first creation instead of the last [and] not only the first man, but the 'first flesh' upon the earth also" (TWL, 292).

This theory of a prior creation and cataclysmic destruction followed by the Adamic creation was the major objectionable feature of the book. Note that neither the Roberts theory itself nor the response of the committee of the Twelve talked about organic evolution. What the committee did say was this:

"We feel that the arguments as given contradict the accounts given in all our scriptures, and more especially in the temple ceremonies. As we understand it the term ' first flesh also,' does not have reference to Adam as being the first living creature of the creation on the earth, but that he, through the ' fall ' became the first ' flesh,' or mortal soul. The term ' flesh ' in reference to mortal existence is of common usage. We find it so used in the scriptures. Adam having partaken of the fruit became mortal and subject to death, which was not the condition until that time. We are taught in the Temple as well as in the scriptures that man was the last creation placed upon the earth, before death was introduced. Adam was the first to ... become subject to the flesh." (TWL, 292-293.)

Historian James B. Allen tells of a lengthy interview Elder Roberts had with the First Presidency about TWL. During this meeting, Allen informs us, Roberts was "told again that the First Presidency and the Twelve could not approve some parts" (TWL, 702; emphasis added).

The decision of the 1931 First Presidency was that the discussions involving "Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology" as used by Roberts to promote his theory would lead only to "confusion, division, and misunderstanding if carried further" (TWL, 709-710). Publication of TWL without removing it's objectionable features was no longer an option (TWL, 710). It was the end of debate about TWL's controversial theories. It was the end of a long, unpleasant ordeal for Elder B. H. Roberts of the Seventy. It was not about organic evolution.

There Was No Disagreement About Organic Evolution

The 1928-1931 review of TWL did not involve "intense" discussion about organic evolution. There was no disagreement on that issue.

Elder Roberts was not an evolutionist and TWL does not promote organic evolution. On the contrary, TWL plainly teaches that each "subdivision of life ... produces after its kind, whereas evolution in all its forms destroys that thought" (TWL, p. 239). Roberts twice (TWL, 236, 245) refers the reader to his own previous discussion of the theory of evolution in "Man's Relationship to Deity":

"The theory of evolution as advocated by many modern scientists lies stranded upon the shore of idle speculation.... If the hypothesis of evolution be true,... then it is evident that there has been no "fall,"... and if there was no fall,... then the mission of Jesus Christ was a myth, the coinage of idle brains, and Jesus himself was either mistaken, or one of the many impostors that have arisen to mock mankind with the hope of eternal life. Such is the inevitable result of accepting the philosophy of evolution, after which all the world is now running—it is destructive of the grand, central truth of all revelation." (The Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity, 7th edition, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1928, pp. 265-267).

The so-called opposing view was that "the doctrine of organic evolution which pervades the modern day sciences proclaiming the edict that man has evolved from the lower forms of life ... is as false as [its] author who lives in hell." (Elder Joseph Fielding Smith to the Quorum of the Twelve, January 21, 1931, as quoted in Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg editors, The Search For Harmony, Salt Lake City: Signature Books,1993, p. 96.)

Now, who desires to destroy the grand, central truth of all revelation if it isn't the author of all lies who lives in hell? There is no evidence of disagreement between Roberts and his Brethren about the theory of organic evolution!

In his introduction to TWL, law professor and editor of BYU Studies, John W. Welch describes the relationship between the concepts in TWL and those in "Man's Relationship to Deity." According to Welch, Roberts was remarkably consistent in his writings (TWL, xxix) being uniformly "critical of the general theories of evolution" and asserting that "all forms of life were brought to the earth 'not by the process of evolution, but ... from some other and older sphere.' " (TWL, xxx-xxxi).

The main difference, according to Welch, between the views expressed in "Man's Relationship to Deity" and those expressed in TWL "is that the latter is more specific in locating the great cataclysm on this earth [whereas] the earlier exposition ... argued that the Earth was created from fragments of another planet and that pre-Adamic races 'were inhabitants of that world which was destroyed.' " (TWL, xxx-xxxi). Perhaps "Man's Relationship to Deity" was not considered "theologically problematical," Welch concludes, "because it entailed no death on this planet after its formation and before the fall of Adam" (TWL, xxxi).

Others who have read TWL agree likewise that organic evolution was not an issue.

For example, Richard Sherlock, professor of philosophy at USU, says the theory advanced by Elder Roberts in TWL "was clearly not a theory of evolution [because] it did not deal at all with the central thesis of evolution—the mutability of species and descent with modification.... He [Roberts] was unwilling to attempt a reconciliation grounded in a firm commitment to evolution." (The Search For Harmony, pp. 76-77; emphasis added.)

Surprisingly, William E. Evenson, who authored the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article, has also since recognized that the opinions in the manuscript were "not those of an evolutionist" and the discussions "were not centered on the scientific theories of origins of life forms. Rather, the central point of concern was whether death occurred on earth before the fall of Adam" (TWL, 645; emphasis added). Evenson now acknowledges that the Roberts manuscript "addresses three forms of evolutionary theory [and] finds all three ... to be inadequate" (Ibid). Evenson further concedes that Roberts, in TWL, "rejects all current [evolutionary] theories as he understands them [and] puts forward his own theory" to reconcile the scriptures with the fossil record (Ibid).

The Question of Death Before the Fall

Because it can be argued that death before the fall is "one of the pillars of evolutionary theory" (The Search For Harmony, p. 67), it might be argued that the decision of the 1931 First Presidency was related to the theory of organic evolution. Even so, how can Latter-day Saints be expected to accept a private discussion, even a First Presidency discussion, as the current position of the Church if that discussion has never been published by the Church and issued to its members in an official Church magazine or in any Church curriculum materials? The answer to this question should be obvious.

More importantly, the question of death before the fall (which was left open in 1931) has since been settled by another First Presidency.

The 1972 First Presidency Publication

Joseph Fielding Smith became the Church's Tenth President in January 1970. He served until his death in July 1972. Earlier that year, the book Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions was made available as the Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study for the period September 1972 to August 1973.

Although some parts of the 1931 memo have been published privately, neither the memo nor any excerpt from it has yet been published by the Church. On the other hand, Selections from Answers to Gospel Questionswas published "by the First Presidency" and distributed to the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums of the Church.

Because it is inconceivable that the First Presidency would publish that which it had not approved, the conclusion is inescapable that the Church's 1972 First Presidency approved the following teachings found in Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions:

"The animals were all created and placed on the earth preceding the coming of Adam and Eve. In fact the whole earth and the creatures on it were prepared for Adam and Eve before Adam's fall.... The earth and all upon it were not subject to death until Adam fell.... It was through the fall of Adam that death came into the world." (pp. 53-54, 111; emphasis added.)

Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions recommends three sections from volume one of President Smith's Doctrines of Salvation (pp. 107-120, 148-151, and 307-320) wherein President Smith discusses organic evolution and the doctrine of no death before the fall.

Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions recommends no fewer than 35 passages from President Smith's 1954 book Man: His Origin and Destiny, a volume that is openly antagonistic to organic evolution. In Man: His Origin and Destiny, President Smith teaches very forcefully the doctrine of no death before the fall (pp. 2, 50-51, 279-280, 328-329, 357-358, 362-365, 376-377, 381, 384, 387-396, 463-464).

Publication of the book Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions was enough to resolve the question of death before the fall. It was not necessary that a special announcement be made. An official pronouncement by the First Presidency might have been more satisfactory to some Church members but the fact remains that President Smith quietly settled the question and the majority of Church members have quietly accepted his decision.

Taught as Church Doctrine by Other Church Presidents

The doctrine of no death before the fall has been taught as Church doctrine by other Church Presidents. For example, President Harold B. Lee taught this doctrine in 1954 when he spoke to the Seminary and Institute teachers of the Church about the "Fall of Man." He was not President of the Church at the time, but his teachings on that occasion have since been published by the Church as the teachings of a President of the Church:

"Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death.... How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state." (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, 2000, p. 20.)

Whether the doctrine of no death before the fall should be viewed as controversial today depends upon how a person views the published teachings of the Presidents of the Church.

The Settled Doctrine of the Church

"The fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 21; emphasis added.) "The President of the Church [is] the only person on earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, p. 229; emphasis added.) Therefore, only the President of the Church may "proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church." (President J. Reuben Clark, as quoted by Francis M. Gibbons in Joseph Fielding Smith: Gospel Scholar, Prophet of God, p. 216; emphasis added.)

Joseph Fielding Smith was a participant in the discussions about the Roberts manuscript. He was present when the 1931 First Presidency announced its decision. Years later, when he himself became Church President, Joseph Fielding Smith became the one man on earth who was authorized to exercise all priesthood keys and he did in fact, as explained above, proclaim one doctrine among two doctrines in dispute as the settled doctrine of the Church—namely the doctrine of no death before the fall. That fact alone removes the doctrine from the area of controversy. But that isn't the end of the story.

The LDS Bible Dictionary

The LDS edition of the Bible was published in 1979. One of its features is a new dictionary prepared especially for Latter-day Saints. The LDS Bible Dictionary is not intended as an official endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal matters set forth therein. However, it is safe to say that unsettled or controversial views would not have been considered as additions to the LDS Bible Dictionary.

The following is a summary of LDS Bible Dictionary teachings about death before the fall. It is not presented as evidence that the doctrine is "official," but merely as evidence that the doctrine is no longer considered controversial.

"There was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall." (s.v. death, p. 655)

"Before the fall,... there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the 'forbidden fruit,' Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered,... and death became a part of life. Adam became the ' first flesh ' upon the earth, meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam's fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind." (s.v. Fall of Adam, p. 670.)

"All things" were created "in a non-mortal condition" and became "mortal through the fall of Adam." (s.v. flesh, p. 676.)

The word "paradise" has two meanings in scripture, one of which is "the glorified millennial state of the earth" referred to in the tenth Article of Faith. (s.v. paradise, p. 742.) Regarding the two words "restitution" and "restoration," the Dictionary says these terms "denote a return of something once present, but which has been taken away or lost. It involves, for example, the renewal of the earth to its paradisiacal glory as it was before the fall of Adam." (s.v. restitution; restoration, p. 761.) During the millennium, of course, "there shall be ... no death" (D&C 101:29).

In addition, the heading to chapter 4 in the book of Moses now reads, "How Satan became the devil—He tempts Eve—Adam and Eve fall and death enters the world."

Review and Conclusion

The 1931 discussion was not about organic evolution and the 1931 First Presidency decision did not address that subject. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article about Evolution quotes the 1931 First Presidency completely out of context.

Quoting the 1931 First Presidency in context as current and authoritative on the subject of death before the fall doesn't work either because the creatures that were being discussed as having lived and died for millions of years before the fall were not the evolutionary forefathers of any creatures that inhabit the earth today. In fact, they were not the products of evolution at all. Therefore, the 1931 First Presidency decision was not even related to organic evolution.

Lastly, earlier prophets don't trump later ones. Quoting the 1931 First Presidency in context, as current and authoritative on the subject of death before the fall, does at least these two things: First, it challenges the authority of the 1972 First Presidency to clarify that doctrine; and second, it calls into question several key phrases about that doctrine that were added by the Church to the LDS Bible Dictionary in 1979.

The pre-Adamic creation theory advanced in TWL remains where the First Presidency left it in 1931. Subsequent Church Presidents have not addressed that issue. When applied to other subjects, however, the 1931 decision is either unrelated or outdated—it was never related to organic evolution and it no longer applies to death before the fall.

[The above article was originally written August 11, 2004. It is reprinted here from ndbf.net.]

Thursday, June 09, 2005

My Reasons For Hosting This Blog

"Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

The time has come for me to step back and remind myself why I decided to host this blog in the first place. Apparently, it is always tempting to stray from one's original purpose, especially when discussing various ideas related to that purpose. To some extent, I think that has recently happened here.

A Mormon Urban Legend

1. The primary purpose for my web presence is to put to rest a Mormon urban legend that has been circulating for more than thirty years—namely that the 1931 First Presidency statement, which silenced a long, mostly private, and controversial discussion among Church leaders in 1928-1931, had anything to do with evolution. Neither the discussion nor its terminating First Presidency statement had anything whatsoever to do with evolution.

2. The second purpose is to expose a fundamental flaw in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article about Evolution—a flaw whose origin can be traced to the Mormon urban legend mentioned above (see ndbf.net chapter one and my article about the BYU Evolution Packet, both written before I started this blog).

3. A third purpose is to expose at its root the origin of the Mormon urban legend mentioned above (see ndbf.net chapter two).

4. Because a certain LDS doctrine has been subtly undermined by the above mentioned Mormon urban legend, an underlying purpose of this blog and my web site at ndbf.net is to highlight the existence and validity of the LDS doctrine of No Death Before the Fall.

Luther on Defending Christ

More than four hundred years ago, the great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546) said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." (Weimar Ausgabe Briefwechsel 3, 81f; italics added.)

For two years in the sixties, I served as a full time missionary among the Lutheran Protestants in Germany. I gained a deep respect for the dogged determination of the German people.

This blog is an outward expression of my response to the above challenge, given to all Christians in all ages by a courageous German reformer.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

What happened to confidentiality?

"SALT LAKE CITY -- A rare set of documents that are the basis for a new biography of David O. McKay, who led The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the civil rights era, show that the LDS president studied the issue of elevating black men to leadership roles but ultimately balked at doing it.

"The never-before-seen pages are from the personal diaries, discourses and scrapbooks of McKay which were compiled by his secretary of 35 years, the late Clare Middlemiss.

"Middlemiss bequeathed the 130,000 pages to her nephew, Salt Lake City attorney William Robert Wright, who wrote 'David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism' (University of Utah Press) with Gregory A. Prince." ("Religion in the News," washingtonpost.com; see also related stories at msnbd.msn.com and radio.ksl.com.)

I've used the above three paragraphs to lead off this post for reasons that will become apparent near the end.

I wasn't going to buy this book

Three weeks ago, a very good and long-time friend sent me an email asking whether I was aware of a new book he had just purchased. He was in the process of reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and thought I might be interested in "the part where it talks about President McKay's belief in organic evolution and his quoting from Charles Darwin."

I had seen several pre-release book reviews and was uncomfortable with the way Church documents had become available to the authors (to be discussed more fully below).

I answered my friend thus: "Yes, I am aware of the book of which you speak. I am also aware that David O. McKay had every opportunity to state his position publicly and didn't. He can believe what he wishes privately and it doesn't concern me in the least."

Well, things change. And after a recent comment from Julie Smith here and a careful reading of her book review here, I decided that I couldn't ignore the book after all.

Heber J. Grant and Evolution

Unfortunately, what I've now discovered is that Prince and Wright made some foolish errors. For example, on page 45, under the heading "The Evolution Debate," they claim:

"In the first half of the twentieth century, the debate surrounding biological evolution was as heated within Mormonism as in other American Christian churches. It extended into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with three scientists—James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph F. Merrill—supporting evolution, and Joseph Fielding Smith vehemently opposing it. A moratorium that was initially imposed by Church President Heber J. Grant prevailed until the last of the three apostle-scientists died in 1952." (Italics added.)

Those familiar with my web site at ndbf.net (be sure to read both chapters) and my discussion about the BYU Evolution Packet here already know that neither biological evolution, nor organic evolution, nor any other form of evolution was involved in the discussions referred to in the above paragraph. I will state categorically that what Prince and Wright said about Heber J. Grant's so-called moratorium on discussing evolution is completely and utterly false.

The William Lee Stokes letter

I recently read an essay by William Lee Stokes titled "David O. McKay's Position on Evolution." In 1968, it became obvious to Stokes that in spite of what President McKay had said to him in a 1957 letter, other Church authorities were continuing to publish what Stokes thought were contrary views. Therefore, "on 13 October 1968, I again wrote to President McKay and asked for permission to publish the essential statements from his 1957 letter." (Sterling B. Talmage, Can Science Be Faith-Promoting?, ed. Stan Larson, Salt Lake City: Blue Ribbon Books, 2001, xliii).

Stokes relates that five days later, on 18 October, he received a reply "over the signature of Joseph Anderson, secretary to the First Presidency, stating that he had been directed to tell me that there was no objection to my use of the quotation—'on the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position'—in a book I was then writing" (Ibid).

The Stokes essay quoted above was published four years ago. Yet Prince and Wright claim, based on incomplete research, that "in the late 1960s, he [McKay] authorized William Lee Stokes, a geologist on the faculty of the University of Utah, to publish a letter that he had written to Stokes in 1955 that stated, ' The book, "Man, His Origin and Destiny" was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church." ' " (page 49; emphasis added.)

First of all, the letter in question was written in 1957, not 1955. More importantly, and according to Stokes himself, permission was granted to publish only one sentence from the letter, and not the one quoted by Prince and Wright.

But the book has bigger problems

In spite of these obvious errors, there are larger issues with this book. A fellow blogger, known to me only as Jed, has said this about the book David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism:

"The book raises important questions transcending Mormonism. The questions are legal and ethical questions about the nature of public and private history and the responsibilities of historians in using records intended for private use. This book would never have been written without a motherload of diaries and minutes falling into the hands of the authors, and there is some question—never confronted in the book—about whether they ever should have had them in the first place."

I think the legal and ethical questions raised by Jed deserve answers, and not merely in the form of blog comments. Furthermore, in my view there are religious and moral issues involved related to confidentiality.

So what did happen to confidentiality?

The word confidentiality is a form of the word confidential which means "1. Done or communicated in confidence; secret. 2. Entrusted with the confidence of another: a confidential secretary.3. Denoting confidence or intimacy: a confidential tone of voice." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000; italics in the original.) Note that the phrase "a confidential secretary" epitomizes the very meaning of the word confidential.

It has long been the policy of the Church that precautions be taken to ensure that confidential documents are not available to unauthorized persons. In the following paragraph, Elder Dallin H. Oaks—who is eminently qualified to speak on the legal aspect of this subject—addresses records privacy from an ethical, legal, and a moral perspective:

"The laws and ethics of privacy forbid custodians from revealing information that may invade the privacy of living individuals. Examples would include diaries or minutes that discuss the private affairs of living persons. In addition, our belief in life after death causes us to extend this principle to respect the privacy of persons who have left mortality but live beyond the veil. Descendants who expect future reunions with deceased ancestors have a continuing interest in their ancestors' privacy and good name. These same considerations apply to official Church documents, such as the minutes of confidential meetings." (Ensign, Oct. 1987, 65.)

Even at the ward and stake level, in "committee and council meetings, delicate matters often are discussed, requiring strict confidentiality." (M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, May 1994, 25; emphasis added.)

"The Lord’s church is organized with councils at every level, beginning with the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and extending to stake, ward, quorum, auxiliary, and family councils. [And at every level] confidentiality is critical. Council members must hold all matters discussed in council meetings in strict confidence." (M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, Nov. 1993, 78.)

Having served both as stake clerk and assistant ward clerk, and having been employed by the Church as a part-time research assistant, I know from personal experience that the matter of confidentiality extends to those who are assigned to take notes and keep records.

For the above reasons, reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism makes me feel like an intruder—an eavesdropper. Other than that, I'll agree with Dennis Lythgoe of the Deseret News, who said the book "often seems more like a doctoral dissertation than a conventional biography." (deseretnews.com.) Mr. Lythgoe is correct in more ways than one. Prince and Wright, both highly educated and experienced, should have been able to do better than college students.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Bruce R. McConkie and current Church curriculum

This is the third of a three-part series about Elder Bruce R. McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine. The first two articles are found here and here. In this article, we will see that 85 times in current Church curriculum manuals, Elder Bruce R. McConkie has been cited as an authority on Mormon doctrine. In one case, an entire speech is reprinted in the manual. Elder McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine is cited no fewer than 44 times in current Church curriculum manuals.

I find it difficult to believe that Elder McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine could be so well received by the Church generally if certain information never intended for the public represented the complete truth. Such stories, because they tell only part of the truth, are false.

In the following list, a link to current Church curriculum material is first given, followed by the words in the document that cite Elder Bruce R. McConkie.

Teaching, No Greater Call, 43: " 'The crowning, convincing, converting power of gospel teaching is manifest,' said Elder Bruce R. McConkie, 'when an inspired teacher says, "I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the revelations of the Holy Spirit to my soul, that the doctrines I have taught are true" ' (The Promised Messiah [1978], 516–17)."

Aaronic Priesthood Manual 1, 18: "Read or relate the following story of how the Holy Ghost helped Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Council of the Twelve Apostles ... ('Hearken to the Spirit,' Friend, Sept. 1972, p. 10)."

Aaronic Priesthood Manual 2, 168: "Ask the young men to think silently about what the greatest blessings of their life have been to this point as you tell the following story by Elder Bruce R. McConkie ... (Bruce R. McConkie, 'Agency or Inspiration?' New Era, Jan. 1975, p. 38).

Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, 147: "Ask the young men to listen for ... as you read the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his Counselors (Stephen L. Richards and J. Reuben Clark Jr.) in 1957: ... (quoted by Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 558)."

Young Women Manual 2, 89: "As you read the following, ask the young women to identify ... (Bruce R. McConkie, How to Get Personal Revelation, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 11 Oct. 1966], p. 4)."

It has been rightfully said of Elder Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine, "Perhaps few books, except the scriptures, can match it in the frequency with which it has been quoted in talks and lessons by those seeking to teach gospel principles." (Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The Mormon Doctrine Saga 1958 and 1966," in The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 182; click here to read the entire chapter.)

I find it difficult to believe that Elder McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine could be so well received by the Church generally if certain information never intended for the public represented the complete truth. Such stories, because they tell only part of the truth, are false.

Bruce R. McConkie and current Church magazines

This is the second of a three-part series about Elder Bruce R. McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine. The first article is found here. In this article, we will see that 31 times in the past 18 months, Elder Bruce R. McConkie has been cited as an authority on Mormon doctrine.

Two entire speeches by Elder Bruce R. McConkie have been reprinted in current Church magazines. The book Mormon Doctrine has been cited in six current Church magazines, including this month's June 2005 Ensign.

Eight months ago, Elder McConkie was quoted by President Thomas S. Monson in the New Era. Twice recently, Elder Dallin H. Oaks has quoted Elder McConkie's words in a Church magazine.

I find it difficult to believe that Elder McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine could be so well received by the Church generally if certain information never intended for the public represented the complete truth. Such stories, because they tell only part of the truth, are false.

In the following list, a link to a current Church magazine article is first given, followed by the words in the article that cite Elder Bruce R. McConkie.

Liahona, Sep. 2004, 11 (article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles): "Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stressed our responsibility to do all that we can before we seek a revelation ... 'Agency or Inspiration—Which?' in Speeches of the Year, 1972–73 (1973), 108, 113."

Ensign, Nov. 2004, 25 (General Conference talk by Elder L. Tom Perry, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles): "Can you imagine what a special experience it would be to be in a quorum meeting and be taught gospel doctrine by ... Bruce R. McConkie?"

Liahona, Nov. 2004, 25 (General Conference talk by Elder L. Tom Perry, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles): "Can you imagine what a special experience it would be to be in a quorum meeting and be taught gospel doctrine by ... Bruce R. McConkie?"

Ensign, Jun. 2005, 15: "Thank goodness for a friend who pointed out these words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... As quoted in M. Russell Ballard, "Suicide: Some Things We Know, and Some We Do Not," Ensign, Oct. 1987, 7."

Friend, Mar. 2005, 22 (Sharing Time Ideas): "A week before introducing it, invite a family in the ward or branch to learn and practice the hymn 'I Believe in Christ' (Hymns, no. 134) in family home evening. If possible, ask them to be prepared to sing this hymn to the Primary children. You may also want to read Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s testimony (see Ensign, May 1985, 9–11). Teach the children that the hymn 'I Believe in Christ' is an expression of testimony from Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an Apostle who died in 1985."

New Era, Mar. 2004, 16: " 'Intellectual things—reason and logic—can do some good,' taught Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85). 'But conversion comes and the truth sinks into the hearts of people only when it is taught by the power of the Spirit' (quoted by Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Mar. 1997, 9)."

New Era, Mar. 2004, 49 (Sunday Lesson Helps): "In addition to the Resource Guides (printed in May and November in the Ensign and Liahona), Young Women and Aaronic Priesthood teachers may find these additional resources helpful in enhancing lessons 10–13. ... Bruce R. McConkie, 'Only an Elder,' New Era, Jan. 2003, 36."

New Era, May 2004, 49 (Sunday Lesson Helps): "In addition to the Resource Guides (printed in May and November in the Ensign and Liahona), Young Women and Aaronic Priesthood teachers may find these additional resources helpful in enhancing lessons 18–21. ... Aaronic Priesthood Manual 2 ... Lesson 21 Preparing for the Melchizedek Priesthood ... Bruce R. McConkie, 'Only an Elder,' New Era, Jan. 2003, 36."

New Era, Jun. 2004, 50: "The Q&A for March 2004 hit a deep chord with me, especially the opening paragraph and the quote from Elder Bruce R. McConkie."

New Era, Sep. 2004, 7 (article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles): "Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stressed our responsibility to do all that we can before we seek a revelation ... 'Agency or Inspiration—Which?' in Speeches of the Year, 1972–73 (1973), 108, 113."

New Era, Feb. 2005, 49 (Sunday Lesson Helps): "In addition to the Resource Guides (printed in May and November in the Ensign and Liahona), Young Women and Aaronic Priesthood teachers may find these additional resources helpful in enhancing lessons 6–10. ... Young Women Manual 3 ... Bruce R. McConkie, 'All the Light and Truth,' New Era, Jan. 2004, 42."

It has been rightfully said of Elder McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine, "Perhaps few books, except the scriptures, can match it in the frequency with which it has been quoted in talks and lessons by those seeking to teach gospel principles." (Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The Mormon Doctrine Saga 1958 and 1966," in The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 182; click here to read the entire chapter.)

I find it difficult to believe that Elder McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine could be so well received by the Church generally if certain information never intended for the public represented the complete truth. Such stories, because they tell only part of the truth, are false.

Bruce R. McConkie and B.H. Roberts—parallels and contrasts

This post begins a three-part series about Elder Bruce R. McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine. In this article, I will point out several striking parallels between the earthly ministry and struggles of Elder Bruce R. McConkie and Elder B.H. Roberts. These parallels include, for example, the fact that both men were called to the First Council of the Seventy at the age of 31—Elder Roberts serving 45 years until his death and Elder McConkie serving 38 years until his death (including 13 years as an Apostle).

Both men were prolific writers

Another similarity lies in the fact that both men were prolific writers.

Elder Roberts is "the author of the 3,400-page Comprehensive History of the Church (1930), the editor of the seven-volume 'documentary' History of the Church (1902–1932), and the author of the three-volume New Witnesses for God (1909).... He authored, in addition, more than fifty tracts, articles, and pamphlets revolving around the Book of Mormon, its origins, its content, its meaning, its purposes, and its power as a sacred document." (Truman G. Madsen, Ensign, Dec. 1983, 11.)

Elder McConkie is the author of the three-volume Doctrinal New Testament Commentary (1966-1973), the six-volume Messiah series on the life of Christ, and A New Witness for the Articles of Faith (1985). Elder McConkie also edited the three volumes of Doctrines of Salvation, which contain the sermons and writings of President Joseph Fielding Smith.

The most striking parallel

But the most striking parallel is that each wrote a large encyclopedic volume about the gospel which generated controversy among the leaders of the Church—and it is here that we also begin to see the contrasts.

The book that caused trouble for Elder Roberts was The Truth, The Way, The Life (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1994). Because Elder Roberts was not willing to accept criticism of his book from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, The Truth, The Way, The Life remained unpublished until more than 60 years after his death. I've presented a rather detailed discussion of this whole affair at http://ndbf.net/eom.htm.

The book that caused trouble for Elder McConkie was Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958). Because Elder McConkie was willing to accept criticism of his book from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, it has become "one of the time-honored classics of Mormon literature." (Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The Mormon Doctrine Saga 1958 and 1966," in The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 182; click here to read the entire chapter.)

Today, it has rightfully been said that "few books can match it [Mormon Doctrine] in endurance or number of copies sold. Perhaps few books, except the scriptures, can match it in the frequency with which it has been quoted in talks and lessons by those seeking to teach gospel principles." (Ibid.) But I'm getting ahead of myself.

A difficult beginning

Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum state that "President McKay provately disavowed Elder McConkie's book, which was written without approval of or direction from the church. The First Presidency concluded that the book was ' full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that the book has received such wide circulation' (Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, 179)." (Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001], 49.)

According to Elder McConkie's son, "In January 1960, President McKay asked Elder McConkie not to have the book reprinted." (Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The Mormon Doctrine Saga 1958 and 1966," op. cit., 183; click here to read the entire chapter.)

Spencer W. Kimball assigned to help

But then "on July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned to be Elder McConkie's mentor in making those changes." (Ibid.)

"There were about fifty items that Elder Kimball wanted Elder McConkie to revisit.... These [were not] doctrinal matters in which he differed with Elder McConkie.... They dealt with tone and with the wisdom of including particular things.... Elder Kimball was a wise mentor who taught him the difference between being right and being appropriate. The fact that something is true does not necessarily mean one ought to say it.... Elder Kimball's list of things that needed changing [was] much less extensive than the changes that were made in the second edition.... A wiser Bruce McConkie did a lot of rewriting on his own." (Ibid, 187.)

"Changes [regarding evolution] between the two editions involve only a couple of sentences. The discussion on evolution is the longest single entry in the book, and it includes a lengthy quotation by President John Taylor against Darwin and his theory of evolution. In the first edition, this quotation was introduced with the statement that President Taylor's views reflected ' the official doctrine of the Church.' In the second edition, that statement was dropped. Elder McConkie wrote, ' How scrubby and groveling [changed in the second edition to ' weak and puerile ' ] the intellectuality which, knowing that the Lord's plan takes all forms of life from a pre-existent spirit state, through mortality, and on to an ultimate resurrected state of immortality, yet finds comfort in the theoretical postulates that mortal life began in the scum of the sea, as it were, and has through eons of time evolved to its present varieties and state! Do those with spiritual insight really think that the infinite Creator of worlds without number would operate in this way? ' The conclusion to this section in both editions is ' There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution.' " (Ibid, 188-189.)

Elder McConkie followed counsel

"Mormon Doctrine was reissued in 1966, and its author was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1972. It takes a pretty good imagination to suppose that a man who flagrantly ignored the direction of the president of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would be called to fill a vacancy in that body." (Ibid, 183.)

Those today who so freely criticize Elder Bruce R. McConkie and his book Mormon Doctrine have forgotten two things: (1) Just as the 1931 First Presidency never said anything publicly about The Truth, The Way, The Life, so also the 1958 First Presidency never said anything publicly about Mormon Doctrine. (2) After rewriting Mormon Doctrine under the supervision of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder McConkie and his book can be said to have gone through "the refiner's fire."

President Spencer W. Kimball, who represented the Quorum of the Twelve during the 1966 Mormon Doctrine rewrite, has warned: "The Lord gives the authority to judge and condemn only to the regularly constituted councils of the Church and not to man generally; ' and those who lift their voices ... against the authority of the Holy Priesthood ... will go down to hell, unless they repent.' " (Spencer W. Kimball, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet," Ensign, Jan. 1973, 35.)

President Kimball gave the above warning during the same session of general conference in which Bruce R. McConkie was first sustained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I know because I was sitting on the main floor of the Salt Lake Tabernacle that morning.